Rajasthan Court February 1985 Judgments
Dharam Chand and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN598
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of the 19 petitioners against whom the Police is investigating a case for offences Under Sections 120B, 465, 467 and 471 I.P.C. on a complaint forwarded to it by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, Under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.2. I need not state the facts of the case at length because this application can be disposed of on a short point. Suffice it to say that the complainant Shri Inder Prasad had filed this complaint for the aforesaid offences alleging that the present petitioners had conspired and fabricated the resolutions dated 16-8-1983 and 28-3-1983 with a view to defame the complainant and to harm him. The complainant had before the filing of this complaint also filed a civil suit for declaration of the aforesaid resolutions as void & ineffective and for a permanent injunction restraining the present petitioners from interfering with his working as a Principal of Gyan Jyoti Sik...
Tag this Judgment!Sirehmal Nawalkha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Raj)182; [1985]156ITR714(Raj)
Bhargava, J. 1. This is an income-tax reference wider Section 256(1)of, the Income-tax Act, wherein the following question of law has beenreferred to this court for its opinion : . ..'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the. case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no valid gift of outhouses of the building named as 'Deep Shikha' was made, by the assessee to his wife in terms of the G.T. Act, 1958?''2. The assessee is the owner of a building known as 'Deep Shikha' situated in C-Scheme, Jaipur. It has certain outhouses attached to it, The assessee claims to have gifted the said outhouses to his wife on September 30, 1966. A declaration in writing was made on October 10, 1966, duly signed by both the assessee as well as his wife, the donee, but the same was not got registered by the assessee with the Sub-Registrar (the declaration is dated July 10, 1966, but that is only a typographical mistake). The water receipts, electric receipts and bills are in the name...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Badami Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN519
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Smt. Badami wife of Madhoo Naik resident of Karol Police Station Bagore, District Bhilwara has filed this petition dated January 22, 1985 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Notice was issued on January 25, 1985 by this Court returnable within two weeks.2. In the petition, Badami's grievance was that on December 5, 1984, her husband Madhoo was arrested by Bagore Police in the night at about 11 P.M. and when Upsarpanch was sent to the Police Station, it was revealed that Madhoo Was lying in the Police Station and was crying. He wept and stated that he has been beaten severely. On December 14, 1984, Badami moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, Collector Bhilwara and also sent petitions to the Hon'ble Governor, Home Minister and Chief Minister by registered post but no reply has been received. She met Superintendent of Police several times but no satisfactorily explanation is being given. She enquired from the various police s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sukhlal Sohanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Raj)209; [1985]153ITR221(Raj); 1985WLN(UC)197
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. The question which was referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), to this court, vide its order dated June 29, 1983, was : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the firm stood dissolved on the death of Shri Mohanlal (partner) on February 6, 1977, and, therefore, two separateassessments should have been made for the two periods--anterior to the death and posterior to the death of the partner ?' 2. The aforesaid question arose out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, dated November 25, 1982. The Tribunal, vide its order dated November 25, 1982, took the view that the anterior partnership firm stood dissolved on the death of Mohanlal, one of the partners, on February 6, 1977, and that after the death of Mohanlal, a new firm came into existence from February 14, 1977, in accordance with the partnership deed dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Anand Laxmichand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN177
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. This Court by order dated 6th October, 1976, had given a direction to the Board of Revenue to state the case and refer the following question of law:Whether Section 12 of the Rajasthan Safes Tax Act enables the assessing authority to re-assess the dealer where the turnover has been assesseed at too low a rate ?2. The facts of the case are that ACTO (Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer) Ward-II. Circle-I, Jaipur issued notice Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (here in after referred to as the Act) to the assessee for the assessment year 1964-65 on the ground that the assessee's turn-over of Rs. 34,406.08 relating to the imitation pearls was taxed at a lower rate of 1% while if ought to have been taxed at rate of 6%. The ACTO levied tax of Rs. 2,061.06 on the turn-over of mitation pearls at 6% and after allowing the adjustment of tax already paid at 1%, directed the assessee to pay the balance of Rs. 1,780.30.3. The assessee filed an appea...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Hari Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN594
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, has referred this matter to this Court Under Section 395(2) Cr. P.C. as according to him, a serious question of law arises in the disposal of the bail application filed before him. The question which vexed him was whether in view of Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (he appears to refer to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952) a court of Special Judge is to be deemed to be a Sessions Judge for the purpose of the application Under Section 438 Cr. P.C. In other words, whether in the presence of Section 8(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 here in after called 'the Act of 1952'), a Sessions Judge of any sessions division can grant bail Under Section 438 Cr. P.C. to a person who apprehends to be arrested in any of the offences triable by the Special Judge, or only the Special Judge has the power to do so in such a case.2. The matter arose before him on an application filed by the petitioner Hari Singh Under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Khan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN500
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This is a petition of habeas corpus by Babu Khan, who has been detained under Sub-section (2) Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act No. 65 of 1980) (for short 'the Act' here in after).2. The District Magistrate, Jodhpur passed an order on September 12, 1984 under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act stating that he was satisfied that the detention of Babu Khan was necessary with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The validity of the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur has been challenged by the petitioner.3. The District Magistrate, Jodhpur, while passing the detention order dated September 12, 1984, relied on the following 9 instances, on the basis of which his satisfaction rested:(1) that on July 9, 1982, Dr. Jitendra Sodi of Ratanada, Jodhpur filed a complaint that while he was on duty, some persons brought a child for treatment but when he found that ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sabita Mohan Nagpal Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)41
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by its order dated April 30, 1 77 referring to this Court the following two questions, arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated April 22, 1976:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that Smt. Sabita Mohan Nagpal owned the plot No. 25/2E, Jhandewalan Extension, Block 2,New Delhi and the building ejected there on and that Svs. Nitin Mohan and Niran Mohan were merely nominees of Smt. Sabita Mohan Nagpal ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income arising from the said building belonged exclusively to Smt. Sabita Mohan Nagpal and that no over-riding title with regard to 50% of the said income had accrued and arisen in favour of Svs. Nitin Mohan and Niren Mohan in terms of the partnership deeds 5-11-64 and 31-12-1969 ?2. It is not ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Rafique Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ44; 1985WLN(UC)260
ORDERGopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This petition Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been preferred against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tonk, dt. 17th Jan., 85. The learned Sessions Judge passed this order in a revision petition filed before him against the order of the SDM, Tonk, dt. 21st Feb., '83 and 15th Mar., '83, on application under Sections 133 and 142, Cr. P. C.2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Garg that this application Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. He argued that the petitioner had submitted a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Tonk, which was dismissed vide his order dt. 17th Jan. '85, and so, now a fresh application Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. before this Court, is not maintainable.3. I may like to mention here that the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, seems to be a confused person. In his order, he has observed that the learned Magistrate passed the order Under Section 142, Cr. P. C. which was a preliminary order, and final ord...
Tag this Judgment!Bhedi Lal Kapur Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN449
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. This rule is directed against the order passed by the Municipal authorities for payment of octroi duty on the goods imported by the petitioner within the Municipality for Ajmer.2. The short question on which this rule is to be made absolute to the extent indicated hereinafter is that Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962 provides as follows:(14) Determination of the value of goods for assessment of octroi:(1) Before the octroi duty is paid the original invoice (bijak) bearing the signature of the selling dealer or the dispatching agent, if any, shall be produced and may be considered valid and accepted as evidence of the value of the goods. The original of its copy produced by the person bringing the goods shall be pasted on the bill-cum-receipt in Form 2;(2) All goods, on which an ad valorem octroi is leviable will be taxed according to their full value as given in the original bill or invoice (Bijak);Note: Full value includes all taxes or ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »